The Ultimate Setlist Question - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Your Blue Room > U2 360° Tour Central - 2009 / 2010 / 2011 Archive > Set Lists & Songs
Click Here to Login
View Poll Results: Static Or Non Static, that is the question...
I am generally OK with Static Setlists 48 55.17%
I am generally NOT OK with Static Setlists 39 44.83%
Voters: 87. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-09-2009, 09:03 AM   #1
Blue Crack Supplier
 
elevated_u2_fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: I'm here 'cus I don't want to go home
Posts: 31,887
Local Time: 08:40 PM
The Ultimate Setlist Question

Alright people, this is for all the marbles!

Setlists, are you ok with the Standard Setlist Pattern that U2 has basically followed for the past 20 years or are you not?

People keep mentioning on both sides of the argument that there are a lot of people who agree with them, lets see where this goes...

Just to clarify, you can only choose one option:

You are generally OK with Static Setlists that are basically the same night after night - this is the reality of who U2 are and it takes into account the amount of casual fans who are there along with the live experience being much more enjoyable then downloading bootlegs... you get the picture...

You are generally NOT OK with Static Setlists and want more variation between shows - U2 has performed varied setlists previously so they are capable of doing so again, it makes for a more entertaining show, the setlists do not need to be drastically different every night just have more variety, other artists (Bruce, Radiohead, etc) switch up their setlists… you get the picture...
__________________

elevated_u2_fan is offline  
Old 07-09-2009, 09:06 AM   #2
New Yorker
 
Tyagu_Anaykus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Naked on the Beach
Posts: 2,821
Local Time: 01:40 AM
Can I choose both?
__________________

Tyagu_Anaykus is offline  
Old 07-09-2009, 09:07 AM   #3
Blue Crack Supplier
 
elevated_u2_fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: I'm here 'cus I don't want to go home
Posts: 31,887
Local Time: 08:40 PM
No
elevated_u2_fan is offline  
Old 07-09-2009, 09:11 AM   #4
HCL
War Child
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 831
Local Time: 09:40 PM
Generally OK
HCL is offline  
Old 07-09-2009, 09:14 AM   #5
The Fly
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 36
Local Time: 12:40 AM
This topic has been rehashed so many times and I don't believe I've ever posted on the subject, but:

It comes down to what type of show do you want?

U2 if famous for it's extravagant live shows, groundbreaking stage designs, interaction with the audience and some of the greatest video screens and graphics in rock and roll touring.

Now, how would they accomplish this without keeping the setlist static? I, for one, love the fact that their live shows are an experience. It's almost theatre.

I love going to Springsteen shows because I also find it charming to see nothing but a great band up on stage playing music.

But that's not what U2 is. The shows are best when they're on sensory overload and that's what we finally have again with U2 360.

They also have songs that have many layers, keyboards, two guitars, synth, etc, etc. And those need to be on a programmed set. The E-Street band is like an 8 piece band and can pick up any song and play.

U2 is essentially a three piece band because Bono's guitar is more of a decoration

I think the shows are legendary and great the way they are. Sure, I'd love to hear a show full of rarities, but if I take my wife, she damn well better hear Pride, One, Streets, Beautiful Day, and WOWY, or she'd feel ripped off. It's just the way it is and when you're playing to 90 000 people, most of them don't come to interference.com

I think that if most of the complainers on here would have been told pre-tour that the band would be playing Ultraviolet, and The Unforgettable Fire nightly on this tour, they would take that and run and not care about the rest of the set.

That's not even to mention Electrical freaking Storm.

Seriously, people. This forum had two massive threads on Ultraviolet and UF before the tour, and BOTH ARE IN THE SET!!!! That is unbelievable and terrific.

Can't wait for Toronto 1 and 2.

P.S - The only contention I have with the set is that it should fit the theme/design of the tour and stage. This tour should have big songs and go less on the acoustic, not that I have a problem with the actual songs being played.

Even the "tired old warhorse" BTBS would really fit this tour.
PG Canada is offline  
Old 07-09-2009, 09:15 AM   #6
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Asbury Park, NJ
Posts: 213
Local Time: 08:40 PM
If you do the same thing over and over again doesnt it get boring?
Bruce is offline  
Old 07-09-2009, 09:26 AM   #7
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,188
Local Time: 07:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce View Post
If you do the same thing over and over again doesnt it get boring?
Ask a Broadway actor. To me that's kind of what a U2 show is, and has been since probably JT but for sure since ZooTV, it's part rock n roll and part theatrical show... nothing wrong with that.
BVS is offline  
Old 07-09-2009, 09:30 AM   #8
HCL
War Child
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 831
Local Time: 09:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce View Post
If you do the same thing over and over again doesnt it get boring?
No if it's done perfectly.
That happens to be the case with U2.
HCL is offline  
Old 07-09-2009, 09:31 AM   #9
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Asbury Park, NJ
Posts: 213
Local Time: 08:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PG Canada View Post
This topic has been rehashed so many times and I don't believe I've ever posted on the subject, but:

It comes down to what type of show do you want?

U2 if famous for it's extravagant live shows, groundbreaking stage designs, interaction with the audience and some of the greatest video screens and graphics in rock and roll touring.

Now, how would they accomplish this without keeping the setlist static? I, for one, love the fact that their live shows are an experience. It's almost theatre.

I love going to Springsteen shows because I also find it charming to see nothing but a great band up on stage playing music.

But that's not what U2 is. The shows are best when they're on sensory overload and that's what we finally have again with U2 360.

They also have songs that have many layers, keyboards, two guitars, synth, etc, etc. And those need to be on a programmed set. The E-Street band is like an 8 piece band and can pick up any song and play.

U2 is essentially a three piece band because Bono's guitar is more of a decoration

I think the shows are legendary and great the way they are. Sure, I'd love to hear a show full of rarities, but if I take my wife, she damn well better hear Pride, One, Streets, Beautiful Day, and WOWY, or she'd feel ripped off. It's just the way it is and when you're playing to 90 000 people, most of them don't come to interference.com

I think that if most of the complainers on here would have been told pre-tour that the band would be playing Ultraviolet, and The Unforgettable Fire nightly on this tour, they would take that and run and not care about the rest of the set.

That's not even to mention Electrical freaking Storm.

Seriously, people. This forum had two massive threads on Ultraviolet and UF before the tour, and BOTH ARE IN THE SET!!!! That is unbelievable and terrific.

Can't wait for Toronto 1 and 2.

P.S - The only contention I have with the set is that it should fit the theme/design of the tour and stage. This tour should have big songs and go less on the acoustic, not that I have a problem with the actual songs being played.

Even the "tired old warhorse" BTBS would really fit this tour.
I think this is an awesome post. I am both a U2 and Springsteen fan. I got to admit that I have seen both over 20 times apeice and when it comes to live performance theres Bruce and then theres everbody else.

#1 I wish U2 could be more like Bruce as in expanding the setlist Springsteen shows are generally 45 minutes longer than U2 shows and he's 59 years old. NO reason why U2 cant give us 3 hours shows especially if they are going to charge $250.00 per ticket.

Point#2 Why cant U2 change their set list every night? For 2 years Springsteen has gone into the audience and taken requests from fans and then plays the songs like they were rehearsed over and over. No reason U2 cant do this. Imagine going to a U2 and Bono takes your sign and then plays the song you requested say like " Red Hill Mining Town?

One of the better books I ever read on U2 was by Carter Alan " Outside is America" During the Zoo TV era I wrote Mr. Alan who spent a great deal of time with the band what he thought and he felt that a U2 show was more an event about the stage design, Lights, explosions etc and not about the music I wonder what he would say now?

U2 will go down as one of the greatest bands of all time. For well over 20 years they have written some of the greatest songs of all time. I just wonder when they play live do they still enjoy it or is it just doing their job. When I see Springsteen I see a different set list every night and a guy who really enjoys what he's doing. I've seen him keep playing when the stage lights go on. I've seen him play 30 songs walk off stage and then come back up the steps and tell the band to play one more. I just dont see this in U2 and it makes me sad because I love them as well.
Bruce is offline  
Old 07-09-2009, 09:38 AM   #10
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,188
Local Time: 07:40 PM
Springsteen and U2 are different? Go figure...

I'm sure there are U2 fans that would like U2 to be more like Bruce, and I'm sure there are Bruce fans that wish he was more like U2.

I like my artists to be themselves, otherwise I wouldn't like them...

I've seen U2 do their spectacle of a show, I've seen Ryan Adams play disjointed all over the place shows, I've seen PJ play straight forward rock shows, I've seen Damien Rice play short scripted shows, I've seen Tori Amos play where she never stood up from the piano or talked to the crowd... and I loved them all, I wouldn't have asked for anything different.
BVS is offline  
Old 07-09-2009, 09:38 AM   #11
Ghost of Love
 
gvox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: In The Ballroom of The Crystal Lights
Posts: 19,879
Local Time: 08:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce View Post
I think this is an awesome post. I am both a U2 and Springsteen fan. I got to admit that I have seen both over 20 times apeice and when it comes to live performance theres Bruce and then theres everbody else.
Don't blast me, I've never seen Bruce live. I love his 80s stuff. But everytime I see them on TV or videos - and, notably, doing only 3 or so songs - I can't help but think two things 1. Jesus, his voice is shot. It's barely listenable and 2. They sometimes venture into 'jam band' territory - not as bad as the musically horrific Rolling Stones, but...

So when you say there's Bruce and then there's everybody else, I'd have to strongly disagree. In terms of quality of performance, U2 tops Bruce in my books. Bono can still sing for the most part and Edge doesn't sound like a wall of muddy noise (a la Stones)

__________________
ACROBAT - U2 Tribute on Facebook


http://home.cogeco.ca/~october/images/sheeep.jpg

Don't push this button:
 
I'm serious, don't!


 



gvox is offline  
Old 07-09-2009, 09:40 AM   #12
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Asbury Park, NJ
Posts: 213
Local Time: 08:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Ask a Broadway actor. To me that's kind of what a U2 show is, and has been since probably JT but for sure since ZooTV, it's part rock n roll and part theatrical show... nothing wrong with that.
Then you have got to admit that the recent tours ATYCLB, HTDAB, and the current tour do not have the passion that The Unforgettable Fire, The Joshua Tree and even Zoo TV.
Bruce is offline  
Old 07-09-2009, 09:42 AM   #13
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,188
Local Time: 07:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gvox View Post
and, notably, doing only 3 or so songs - I can't help but think two things 1. Jesus, his voice is shot. It's barely listenable and 2. They sometimes venture into 'jam band' territory - :
I have seen Bruce and it was a good show, but this is exactly why it wasn't an amazing show. It was a disjointed setlist that night, his voice left a lot to be desired, and the band would drag out songs, but the show was high energy I have to give it that... different strokes for different folks.
BVS is offline  
Old 07-09-2009, 09:43 AM   #14
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,188
Local Time: 07:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce View Post
Then you have got to admit that the recent tours ATYCLB, HTDAB, and the current tour do not have the passion that The Unforgettable Fire, The Joshua Tree and even Zoo TV.
No, why would I "got to admit" that? That's just silly.
BVS is offline  
Old 07-09-2009, 09:45 AM   #15
Ghost of Love
 
gvox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: In The Ballroom of The Crystal Lights
Posts: 19,879
Local Time: 08:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by elevated_u2_fan View Post
Setlists, are you ok with the Standard Setlist Pattern that U2 has basically followed for the past 20 years or are you not?
Is there an interference user named Setlists?




__________________
ACROBAT - U2 Tribute on Facebook


http://home.cogeco.ca/~october/images/sheeep.jpg

Don't push this button:
 
I'm serious, don't!


 



gvox is offline  
Old 07-09-2009, 09:46 AM   #16
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Asbury Park, NJ
Posts: 213
Local Time: 08:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gvox View Post
Don't blast me, I've never seen Bruce live. I love his 80s stuff. But everytime I see them on TV or videos - and, notably, doing only 3 or so songs - I can't help but think two things 1. Jesus, his voice is shot. It's barely listenable and 2. They sometimes venture into 'jam band' territory - not as bad as the musically horrific Rolling Stones, but...

So when you say there's Bruce and then there's everybody else, I'd have to strongly disagree. In terms of quality of performance, U2 tops Bruce in my books. Bono can still sing for the most part and Edge doesn't sound like a wall of muddy noise (a la Stones)

I would never blast you. Your giving your opinion and it's a great one! Maybe you should YouTube some of Bruce's recent shows before saying his voice is shot. Trust me it's better than ever. As far as saying U2 tops Bruce in performance I think you should see him in concert before making any judgements.

I guess alot of my posts are Pro-Springsteen and I really dont mean to piss anybody off. Whatever I write is in my opinion and not fact. God knows I'm not that smart. I've been a U2 fan since 1987 and always will be. However when I saw Springsteen I just saw a different dimesion I guess than what I saw in U2.
Bruce is offline  
Old 07-09-2009, 10:03 AM   #17
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 07:40 PM
The idea that U2 cannot:

- Be theatrical on a couple of songs.
- Entertain everyone, from casual fans to diehard fans.
- Be themselves and not someone else.

... while maintaining a non-static setlist is a joke. They can. They choose not to, most likely out of laziness.
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 07-09-2009, 10:39 AM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Aygo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Barcelona, Spain [Lisbon, Portugal]
Posts: 3,543
Local Time: 01:40 AM
I don't think the problem lies in the setlist being static. An U2 show is at least half-conceptual and theatrical than a pop singer show, so it justifies the "static" argument.
I think the problem lies in how the setlist is structured, the repetition of the setlist formula of the last tours erases the conceptual side of it.
Aygo is offline  
Old 07-09-2009, 10:49 AM   #19
War Child
 
ZooMacPhisto800's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Montréal, QC
Posts: 763
Local Time: 12:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillyfan26 View Post
The idea that U2 cannot:

- Be theatrical on a couple of songs.
- Entertain everyone, from casual fans to diehard fans.
- Be themselves and not someone else.

... while maintaining a non-static setlist is a joke. They can. They choose not to, most likely out of laziness.
In complete agreement...

Maybe a bit out of fear also...
ZooMacPhisto800 is offline  
Old 07-09-2009, 10:52 AM   #20
War Child
 
ZooMacPhisto800's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Montréal, QC
Posts: 763
Local Time: 12:40 AM
It's like what you're seeing out there on stage these days is U2 Inc., not U2...


I really get the impression that U2 don't like doing this much either... I think they feel they have to do it this way, which is, in fact, very un-U2.
__________________

ZooMacPhisto800 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ultimate Setlist phillyfan26 Everything You Know Is Wrong Archive 77 07-21-2006 11:04 PM
The ultimate rock and roll setlist djerdap U2 Setlists 3 11-06-2005 05:40 PM
You want a setlist? Axver U2 Setlists 11 10-02-2005 03:20 PM
Chicago II Setlist Watch and Party - DO NOT POST U2.COM SETLIST! Axver General Tour Discussions 508 09-21-2005 09:33 PM
Setlist question U2girl U2 Setlists 3 03-02-2005 05:39 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×